It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Easy? so you are smarter than most scientists studying the climate?

What is this? Do you think most scientists studying the climate disagree?

Perhaps you should read the thread, in a reply to Aphorism:

originally posted by: Greven
Carbon dioxide is indisputably a greenhouse gas: just look at Mars.

Mars should be about 210K, based on the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body radiation law. However, it has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide (96%), albeit very thin. This results in a surface temperature slightly warmer, at about 215K. Ergo, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

If Mars were to acquire more atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would be warmer. The same applies to Earth.

Earth should be about 255K, based on the same law. However, it has a much thicker atmosphere and is quite a bit warmer, with a surface temperature at about 288K. Earth's main greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, but water vapor. A great concern among scientists is that warmer temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Man is burning fossil fuels, which are composed of carbon and when burned create significant quantities of carbon dioxide as a byproduct. This increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and subsequently warms the planet at the surface.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Judith Curry, a climatologist at georgia tech is not CREDIBLE

scitation.aip.org...

obviously you mean that Judith Curry doesn't buy into AGW theory with slavish and religious fervor. Apparantly you can any kind of degree behind your name, like Billy Nuy the science guy (who is a simple engineer) but you run around claiming the sky is falling and man is doomed, you are credible

But a real scientist who questions and debates, a climatologist no less, is not qualified to speak unless she first has the blessing of Pope Al Gore.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Deniers always bring up Gore, as if he said anything new.

Guess what? He didn't. I feel like I'm repeating myself:

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Uh-huh, sure.

Meanwhile, in reality:
WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

Note the date on that White House memo.

We've been able to reliably estimate CO2 and even modeled accurately a temperature increase nearly half a century before it happened.

For emphasis, read that again: We've been able to reliably estimate CO2 and even modeled accurately a temperature increase nearly half a century before it happened..

Judith Curry herself does not deny that temperature increases with increased CO2. Again, for emphasis, Judith Curry herself does not deny that temperature increases with increased CO2.

Get it through your head. She is not allied with you on denying climate change. She is allied with you on denying it will be as bad as some people say it will.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

how do you explain that historically there is an 800 year gap between rising atmospheric temperatures and rising CO2 but apparently there is no gap this time?

How do you explain that man was burning fossil fuels and co2 was rising from 1945 to 1975 and temperatures were falling?

Where is your proof of correlation? Don't bother replying that it is the only thing that makes sense. That just means scientists didn't look hard enough and have not found proof of correlation yet.

Tired of Control Freaks

What 800 year gap?

You mean how CO2 bubbles move in ice cores because it doesn't naturally freeze on Earth? This is all old stuff. I'm pretty sure we've gone over it before - this was a reply to you

originally posted by: Greven
Historically (i.e. recorded by man), there is no time lag.

Prehistorically (from ice core records), there is a bit of a time lag. Experts who critiqued climate research into ice cores a decade ago talked about a quite legitimate complaint - that CO2 probably isn't going to be in the right spot.

When we measure CO2 in an ice core... CO2 does not freeze on Earth naturally. Since it remains a gas, it moves - it can float up in an ice core above where it was trapped.

Now, people who critique climate science turn this legitimate complaint on its head and use it as a critique of CO2 causing warming. Sorry, it ain't.

You just recycle the same old garbage as if you've never heard anything about it before.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven



What is this? Do you think most scientists studying the climate disagree?

It's not my fault they disagree. Science is all about skepticism.

So Mars is 96% co2 and earth is 0.04% co2. that about what? a 2400 times higher concentration. Yet it's colder on Mars.

Significant quantities? 5% of 0.04% is man made.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Mars is significantly further from the Sun and has a significantly thinner atmosphere....

Apples to oranges



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
...
Anyone still feel like denying climate change, or feel like claiming, in the face of vast if circumstantial evidence, that we’re not helping to cause it?

Welcome, climate change deniers, to the Real Anthropocene. And a hell of a scene it is.



Are you that immature that you can't understand the difference between denying climate change and denying the claim that mankind is causing climate change?...

Are you that obtuse that you can't understand that a changing climate doesn't mean it is being caused by mankind?...

Perhaps a paper by climate scientists like Hans von Storch, who in 2006 testified before Congress to claim:


...
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
...


cstpr.colorado.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet in 2013 he was one of the authors of the following paper.


Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

Hans von Storch(1), Armineh Barkhordarian(1), Klaus Hasselmann(2) and Eduardo Zorita(1)
(1) Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but the second and particularly the third would.
...

www.academia.edu...

So much for the 97% certainty huh?...



edit on 9-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

CO2 bubbles trapped in ice does not float up...



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

CO2 bubbles trapped in ice does not float up...


Wording was perhaps poor. CO2 bubbles don't get trapped easily, since they're gas and not solid (like ice crystals).
Consequently, they 'move up' from where they should be. This is why you see very large margins of error when looking at CO2 in ice cores and trying to correlate them with a date.
edit on 20Mon, 09 May 2016 20:33:33 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Wording was perhaps poor. CO2 bubbles don't get trapped easily, since they're gas and not solid (like ice crystals).
Consequently, they 'move up' from where they should be. This is why you see very large margins of error when looking at CO2 in ice cores and trying to correlate them with a date.


You are still wrong... The "gap" is not a "margin of error"... It shows that temperatures go up BEFORE CO2 levels start to go up...

CO2 levels during the ongoing climate change began increasing in the 1600s yet CO2 began increasing over 200 years later... The gap is not a margin of error like you claim...
edit on 9-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven



What is this? Do you think most scientists studying the climate disagree?

It's not my fault they disagree. Science is all about skepticism.

So Mars is 96% co2 and earth is 0.04% co2. that about what? a 2400 times higher concentration. Yet it's colder on Mars.

Significant quantities? 5% of 0.04% is man made.

Who are "they" here?

jrod explained it pretty well.

Earth has more absolute CO2 in its atmosphere (3.13 x 10^15 kg @ ~0.04%) than Mars (2.4 x 10^15 kg @ ~96%). Consider that - that's how thin the Martian atmosphere is.

If you need further elucidation, consider the mechanics behind greenhouse gases: Shortwave radiation strikes a body, raising temperature.
Longwave radiation is emitted from said body outwards.
Greenhouse gases absorb some of this outgoing longwave radiation, depending on wavelengths.
This radiation is (as a whole) re-emitted in every direction.
Some of this radiation is emitted towards the body.
Etc.

Another effect to consider:
Mars' thin atmosphere makes for lower atmospheric pressure.
Lower atmospheric pressure means CO2 is more transparent to this radiation on Mars than it is on Earth.
edit on 21Mon, 09 May 2016 21:03:00 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
You are still wrong... The "gap" is not a "margin of error"... It shows that temperatures go up BEFORE CO2 levels start to go up...

CO2 levels during the ongoing climate change began increasing in the 1600s yet CO2 began increasing over 200 years later... The gap is not a margin of error like you claim...

I think you are under the wrong impression.

Measured CO2 has always led temperature rise.
Inferred CO2 (ice cores & other sources) has considerable wiggle room due to error.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Are you that immature that you can't understand the difference between denying climate change and denying the claim that mankind is causing climate change?...

The real question is, am I so mature that I can respond appropriately to the farrago of ignorance, aggression and discourtesy you call a post without getting banned.

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, read the @$#/%/*** post before replying to it.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Some people call it a conspiracy.I thank it's funny people think that 98% of scientists would conspire against everyone and hide the truth that is in front of our face.

Know what I think. I'm a scientist. I wasn't even asked.

I guess that 98% had to be the number of scientists the government was able to find. You know ... the ones that are on their payroll.

Just remember ... the government wants to put people who don't accept the Official Story in jail.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl


The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperateand polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate changeare likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g.flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion



No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.


SOURCE

Please do correct that last sentence and find that quote from ANY scientific body of national or international standing dissenting from any above statements......



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Alien Abduct



98% of scientists agree that the latest spike (last 120 I ars or so) in the warming of the planet is caused by humans. Google it.

What is the fields of this 98% ? Betchya it isnt one of the established sciences . That count .
Of course , there is this mythical thing called "weather cycles" l; But no way mother nature could have anything to do with it. At least as long as the "quacks" can make billions of dollars.




The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperateand polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate changeare likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g.flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion



No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.


SOURCE

Please do correct that last sentence and find that quote from ANY scientific body of national or international standing dissenting from any above statements......



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Astyanax
I'm on the fence as to rather climate change is man made, because I haven't done much research on the subject. Do you think all of climate change is Man's doing or just some of it? Further more, why do you think it's Man's doing at all? This is something I've been meaning to delve into for a while so I'm all ears for both sides.



98% of scientists agree that the latest spike (last 120 I ars or so) in the warming of the planet is caused by humans. Google it.

Some people call it a conspiracy.I thank it's funny people think that 98% of scientists would conspire against everyone and hide the truth that is in front of our face.

If you know where that 97-98% comes from, you know it's all a joke and a scam, Google that.
AGW is as fake as the war on drugs.
CO2 and humans are NOT causing global warming, in fact there hasn't been any warming for over 15 years. Tropospheric data doesn't show any warming for almost 20 years and stratospheric data shows a significant cooling, and that's easy to show.
There is not one scientist who claims to be a climate change denier, AGW denier is a whole other bucket though.

At the rate sea levels are rising it won't cause any significant damage the coastal areas, it has been rising since the last little ice age and humans are still here building there coastal summer homes and multiplying like rabbits.
If it is as catastrophic as they say why aren't they building mega coastal dams and walls around cities?
Ow i forgot, they are to busy playing war and other political nonsense games.

Should we take climate change serious? Off course!
Are we doing that? No!
We have no clue how the climate works, still we manage to have a consensus on global warming, something is not right here?
We all know well by now that all the climate models are incorrect and temperature doesn't follow the same trend as co2 emissions. Yet we still let these same 'scientists' tell us what to believe about the climate. One thing i have learned for years is you should not believe anything the IPCC says, it's an agenda driven corporation with only one goal, to prove GW is caused by humans, nothing to do with real 'climate science'.




The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperateand polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate changeare likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g.flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion



No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.


SOURCE

Please do correct that last sentence and find that quote from ANY scientific body of national or international standing dissenting from any above statements......



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Why the apparant change of sea level is different in one part of the globe to another is a matter for another thread, but the fact is that the mean sea level is falling when compared to the levels it was at millions of years ago. Once again people are not looking back far enough. There is no point comparing sea levels over the past 20 or 50 years. It's meaningless.

The mean sea level chart below shows that sea level was massively higher than it is now, and it has gone up and down like a yoyo, down during ice ages followed by a rise. We are currently in a post ice age period, but some say we are headed back towards ice age again.

From REF


Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.






Over most of geologic time, the long-term mean sea level has been higher than today (see graph above). Only at the Permian-Triassic boundary ~250 million years ago was the long-term mean sea level lower than today.


We are currently at the lowest sea level for 250 million years. I don't doubt it is time for the level to rise again, but seriously I don't think man has any say in the matter. Although ..


Long term changes in the mean sea level are the result of changes in the oceanic crust, with a DOWNWARD TREND expected to continue in the very long term

edit on b37316375 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Measured CO2 has always led temperature rise.
Inferred CO2 (ice cores & other sources) has considerable wiggle room due to error.


Wrong...


Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Lags Temperature: the Proof

Published on June 13, 2014

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE

Man-made global warming promoters claim the high correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric temperature (T) in the 420,000 year ice core record proves CO2 causes T to change. Herein is demonstrated how the evidence conflicts with that belief.

CO2 fraud

Basics. First, correlation alone only proves correlation, not cause and effect. Physics is required to describe and prove cause and effect. Second if increasing CO2 did cause T to increase, there must be some physical lag or delay in the response of T to CO2; average T of whole atmosphere, oceans and land masses cannot respond instantaneously to CO2, no matter how strong the cause.

In fact many researchers claim CO2 actually lags T, proving CO2 cannot cause T changes at all. Rather T causes CO2.

What could cause CO2 to lag warming? Its solubility in water? Yes, that explains the data well. Simply put, when oceans warm due to greater solar energy absorption, they outgas dissolved CO2 just like soda water does because CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold. When oceans are chilled, they absorb CO2 gas and hold it because CO2 is more soluble. Tropical seas hold less CO2/m3 than polar seas do. en.wikipedia.org...

The lag is measured to be about 800 years and confirmed by theory.

Data analysis. After studying that mechanism in 2009 and Al Gore’s 420,000 years of T and CO2 data in his “Inconvenient Truth” movie and National Geographic June 2007 Big Thaw article and insert, their data confirm it was a lag, not a lead.

Houstons University of St Thomas, Environmental Sciences Department also confirmed the 800 year lag at their April 21, 2009 Conference with Jill Hasling, Weather Research Center, Houston, as have many others.

The measurement is done by inputting T data to a lag model with an assumed lag time constant, τ, and comparing lagged T data output with raw CO2 data. This rigorously accounts for different frequencies. If a lag time can be found that provides a close match between lagged T and CO2, the lag time assumption would be verified by measurement.

The lag model is yi = f*xi + (1-f)yi-1, a discrete form of low-pass filter or electrical RC circuit. en.wikipedia.org...

xi is the series of T data for i = 1, 2, 3, …….. and yi is series of lagged or filtered T data.

Filter factor f = del t/(τ + del t) < 1, where del t is the sampling time interval between xi data points, probably about 10 years.

Computer programs easily find the value for f and τ that best fits the 420,000 year data sequence of lagged yi to CO2i. The result is τ = about 800 years. Of course it may vary by a 100 years or so. The point is the lag τ > 0.

Role of Science. This correlation becomes a proven cause and effect relation when physics explains and predicts what is observed. This value is predicted by ocean circulation rates and mass transfer rate of CO2 across oceans’ gas-liquid surface interface.
...

principia-scientific.org...

CO2 level increases almost always lag temperature increases. The only difference is when a massive event occurs, such as a large meteorite hitting Earth and releases large amounts of co2 from the oceans, or from the soil. Or during very large volcanic eruptions.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

The real question is, am I so mature that I can respond appropriately to the farrago of ignorance, aggression and discourtesy you call a post without getting banned.

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, read the @$#/%/*** post before replying to it.


So you can't understand the difference between a statement of fact, and a question either?... Naa, instead you try to dismiss facts, and of course you try to get me banned.

I read your opening thread/post, and it was full of ignorant, and false claims. If you can't understand the difference between denying climate change and denying anthropogenic/manmade climate change it just shows your inability to either comprehend such difference, or your unwillingness to accept that there is a difference between both assertions...


Tell you what, maybe I should demand you getting banned over your past inferred threats about getting rid of people who do not agree with your ideology and that of the UN...

edit on 10-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
This is an interesting gif...

grist.files.wordpress.com...




top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join